Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Why It's Safe To Have Faith in GR:FS


Recommended Posts

A short article on the good points of GR:FS, it's nice to see something positive for a change.

Most long standing FPS titles are forced to go through a reinvention stage at some point. Like when the competition invents some new mechanic that must be copied, or when players are simply too tired of doing the same thing over and over again. Modern Warfare has changed the way the Call of Duty franchise looks and feels, the same way that Medal of Honor, Splinter Cell, and Halo have all been trying to revitalize themselves. But Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon series has been reinventing itself for years now, unlike the competition, and Future Soldier may be the fruit of all Ubisoft's labour.

It'll be a nice change of pace for people who enjoy playing games offline once and a while, however few they may be.

Not with the DRM system that Ubi is intending to use, or do they know something we don't. :o

http://www.gamingunion.net/news/why-its-sa...dier--1331.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
...In a way the Ghost Recon titles were ahead of their time, promoting teamwork and unity over single-handed heroics... ...But there are a lot of really great aspects to the series (particularly GRAW 2) that have a chance to be further polished to a shine in Future Soldier...
Without -as reported elsewhere- a command system being implemented...sounds like they're polishing something else. :whistle:

____

TAGS: Ghost Recon Future Soldier, Ubisoft, PS3, Sony PSP, Xbow 360, Nintendo DS, Nintendo Wii
Consider the source. Edited by NoQuarter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the date the article was published :P

I wonder how much the author has actually played any of the games as he seems a bit misinformed. E.g. He argues Halo, CoD, MoH etc are "mainly oriented around multiplayer" as if the developers or players didn't spend much time with the single player aspect of these games? Also, since when did Halo need to "revitalize" itself? And GR has been moving further away from team-based gameplay with each iteration.

Sorry to sound overly critical but he seems to be churning out an article that has a lot of words (i.e. filler) but in the end is generally vague and doesn't convincingly argue any point that justifies its title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much the author has actually played any of the games as he seems a bit misinformed. E.g. He argues Halo, CoD, MoH etc are "mainly oriented around multiplayer" as if the developers or players didn't spend much time with the single player aspect of these games? Also, since when did Halo need to "revitalize" itself? And GR has been moving further away from team-based gameplay with each iteration.

I can't find anywhere in the article where it says that the aforementioned games are mainly oriented around multiplayer, but the thing that at least Halo and Call of Duty have in common is that they have very polished multiplayer aspects, because the developers of those games realize that shooter games without a strong multiplayer component "die" relatively early, whereas games with good multiplayer last a long time and maintain a larger fanbase. This, in turn, keeps those sales dripping in long after launch day.

I would agree that the Halo franchise haven't gone through any large make-overs yet, other than the graphics. They have made a few noticable changes that affect gameplay (specifically between Halo 2 and 3, which part of the player base didn't like and thus started playing Modern Warfare 2 rather than Halo 3), but it's generally the game.

The Call of Duty series has had a few variables between the different installments, but I believe this is mainly because development has been shifted back and forth between Treyarch and Infinity Ward.

I agree that the article feels very vague. It can pretty much be summed up in "Games change, deal with it" and "hopefully GR:FS will be the best GR game so far" :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I...

Oh wait a minute, this article isn't PC related, is it?

Anyway, assuming that we're talking PC Ghost Recon here. Well, GRAW PC (which was different from the console version, which I somehow doubt the author is aware of) was indeed a reinvention of the Ghost Recon franchise. In and of itself, that was not a bad idea as such. It was just horribly, horribly implemented.

I say it is NOT safe to have faith in Ghost Recon: Future Soldier; Ubisoft will muck it up. They always do.

Edited by krise madsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't find anywhere in the article where it says that the aforementioned games are mainly oriented around multiplayer

Hi Day, glad to see you posting around here again! :thumbsup:

The mention about multiplayer is in the last paragraph:

Even more important is the fact that we may finally see a first person shooter that doesn't completely orient itself around multiplayer, knowing Ubisoft's love of cinema. It'll be a nice change of pace for people who enjoy playing games offline once and a while, however few they may be.

So since he mentions CoD, Halo etc. at the beginning of the article, I assume he is comparing GR to those franchises.

I think the author probably hangs around people who play MP a lot and either doesn't realize 1) A huge number of people buy these games just for single player; 2) Doesn't realize how much effort the dev teams for Halo and CoD games put into developing the SP campaign portions of their games.

I don't know what today's stats are, but I remember a while back that folks at RSE confirmed more people play single player than MP. I guess we just have to look at total sales vs. number of people logged on to online servers/Xbox Live etc to get a rough idea.

I don't think Ubi actually paid this guy to write such a positive article, but those who actually follow the games he mentions may get the feeling he kinda has his head in the sand or just a narrow view of the game playing population.

I feel like a grumpy old geezer complaining here .... sorry about that. I have every expectation that the next GR game will be an excellent game produced by a very talented dev team. (Though it's not the game we GR veterans are looking/hoping for.)

It's just I don't think certain statements in the article are accurate or give a good argument to support the whole premise of the article. I would have agreed if he said "I have faith in the game because the Ubi dev team has proven it's talent in the past" or if he titled the article "Why it's safe to have faith the GR series will continue to evolve" (beyond anything recognizable from its roots) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Day, glad to see you posting around here again! :thumbsup:

Thanks, feels pretty good to be back here, just in time for the juicy FS-related discussions! :P

The mention about multiplayer is in the last paragraph

Ah, thanks, I have no idea how I missed that :blink:

I think the author probably hangs around people who play MP a lot and either doesn't realize 1) A huge number of people buy these games just for single player; 2) Doesn't realize how much effort the dev teams for Halo and CoD games put into developing the SP campaign portions of their games.

I don't know what today's stats are, but I remember a while back that folks at RSE confirmed more people play single player than MP. I guess we just have to look at total sales vs. number of people logged on to online servers/Xbox Live etc to get a rough idea.

There are probably a lot of ups and downs in regards to singleplayer vs. multiplayer, depending on the game itself and how well-developed each gametype is.

The franchises mentioned (Halo and Call of Duty) were made with a big focus on singleplayer and story, specifically the Halo games. For me personally, Bungie are at the top in regards to telling excellent stories in games, along with Bioware. I love the story in the Halo games and can barely wait for the day when I can afford a new 360 (old one died, damned RROD) and finish Halo 3 :P

The CoD series has been a bit up and down for me, I feel Infinity Ward did and awesome job on Modern Warfare and its sequal, which is one of the few shooter games that had me standing up and nearly gasping for breath several times through the singleplayer campaign.

That's not to say that these guys dismiss multiplayer though, because they know that multiplayer is what really decides whether a game lives long today. Which is why the three last CoD games (Modern Warfare 1 & 2 + World at War) took three of the top five spots on the "most played on XBox Live 2009" list, with Halo 3 still at the top and Gears of War 2 (also with a very elaborate story and singleplayer campaign) at a respectable number 5. I'm afraid I couldn't find the actual numbers other than that Halo 3 (for example) sold 8.1 million copies in roughly three months and had more than one million people playing it on XBox Live within the first 20 hours following launch.

The deal is, to put it very simply, that Halo 3 would be "dead" now if not for the elaborate multiplayer system with matchmaking, ranking system and even a map editor, along with continued support through map-packs. People are still buying this game because they want to play it with their friends online, people who would otherwise never buy it.

I know this from personal experience as well, half of the people I have over regularly for LAN-games wouldn't have bought games like Left 4 Dead (1 & 2) or Modern Warfare (1 & 2) had it not been because a couple of friends and I said "Yeah, so we'll probably be playing MW2 all weekend, it's pretty beast, go buy it and have it patched up before you leave home" :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...